What's with all the champion threads?

[Klorox]

I thought it was common knowledge that this was a class for a player who doesn't want to do any bookkeeping.

The optimization of this subclass really doesn't matter.

Amirite?

[CantigThimble]

But what if.... we could MAKE it matter? What if we assumed that every subclass was balanced and any evidence to the contrary was just a result of not playing the game as god, i mean uh, the game developers, intended? Why, I bet then we could argue about it for weeks!

Remember, games aren't fun unless you can mathematically prove that they're fun.

[Cazero]

Remember, games aren't fun unless you can mathematically prove that they're fun.
And people keep trying to prove it with real numbers when fun can only be quantified by complex numbers because of the imaginary part. From a scientific perspective, it's kind of grating that every so called "expert" in the field have no darn clue what they're talking about.

[nickl_2000]

Show your support for the subclass!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY

*note, I really don't mind the threads about analysis of the numbers on this. This is a board talking about optimizations and the best way to do that is with numbers. I don't need to go that in depth, so I don't read the threads :smallbiggrin:

[Christian]

I think the concern is that over time, the casual gamer who decided to play a champion will start to feel overshadowed by the other characters, as they notice that everyone else's contribution to combat (surely the fighter's primary niche) vastly overshadows theirs. Then they'll decide it's a stupid game and quit playing, or something.

Hey, this is another champion thread! Imagine that. I think I'll make a thread complaining about there being too many threads complaining about there being too many champion threads.

[yPants]

You know you're adding to the number of threads about champions, right? :smalltongue:

In any case, optimization may or may not be relevant. Balance, however, definitely is.

Balance-wise, I think champions were intended as a subclass that keeps going and going. They are weaker than other subclasses in days with fewer encounters, and stronger in days with very many encounters. At some number of encounters per day, they are roughly equal. There is disagreement on how many rounds/encounters that point is. There is also disagreement on how many rounds/encounters it should be.

Random sidenotes: Champions have less control over when they do big damage. Some people find champions boring. The champion identity seems to be a unrelenting, non-stop damage machine.

[Potato_Priest]

But what if.... we could MAKE it matter? What if we assumed that every subclass was balanced and any evidence to the contrary was just a result of not playing the game as god, i mean uh, the game developers, intended? Why, I bet then we could argue about it for weeks!

Remember, games aren't fun unless you can mathematically prove that they're fun.

Can I sig that/use it in future debates?

[CantigThimble]

In my opinion, the reasons why the champion's balance is important just dont really hold up.


I think the concern is that over time, the casual gamer who decided to play a champion will start to feel overshadowed by the other characters, as they notice that everyone else's contribution to combat (surely the fighter's primary niche) vastly overshadows theirs. Then they'll decide it's a stupid game and quit playing, or something.

It seems a lot more likely that either:
A) the player wont notice/care that they did 20-30 less damage over the course of an adventuring day than another fighter.
B) they'll play another class that looks like more fun
C) if they're the kind of person who cares fiercely about doing well in combat, chances are they didn't pick the class with 0 abilities in the first place.


In any case, optimization may or may not be relevant. Balance, however, definitely is.

Not necessarily. Its actually totally fine to play a game where some characters are more powerful than others. Lots of co-op games work on that premise for petes sake. Obviously that style isn't for everyone but they can just play a different subclass.

Edit:sure :biggrin:

[fbelanger]

But what if.... we could MAKE it matter? What if we assumed that every subclass was balanced and any evidence to the contrary was just a result of not playing the game as god, i mean uh, the game developers, intended? Why, I bet then we could argue about it for weeks!

Remember, games aren't fun unless you can mathematically prove that they're fun.

Core rule you roll your stats.

So you can create a BM with two 14 as your best stat,
while your buddy make a champion with two rolled 18.
In the eyes of the dev this is a normal situation.
And here people care about some % difference of DPR.

[Specter]

1) people love to argue for the sake or arguing.
2) people love to find any flaw in WotC's stuff, as if that made them wiser than the company.
3) people feel their way of playing (making decisions every round) is the right/fun one.
4) people think that 1 DPR less makes a subclass garbage.
5) people care very little about taking more hits, and too much about damage.

Some of them fall on all of those, others on some.

[Luccan]

Because people were getting bored making "Fighters suck" threads on the 3.X board, duh

But really, a person had a thought about them and then someone had a tangential thought that they moved to a different thread and someone else had a disagreement that they thought warranted a separate thread and then someone took umbrage with that assessment and (X amount of threads later) and now there's this thread.

[alchahest]

1) people love to argue for the sake or arguing.
2) people love to find any flaw in WotC's stuff, as if that made them wiser than the company.
3) people feel their way of playing (making decisions every round) is the right/fun one.
4) people think that 1 DPR less makes a subclass garbage.
5) people care very little about taking more hits, and too much about damage.

Some of them fall on all of those, others on some.

you forgot two:

6) People who are interested in exploring mathematical differences between intent and execution, or other elements of game design
and 7) people who aren't interested in a conversation making sweeping generalisations in the most negative light possible without breaking TOS about people who do want to discuss a thing.

[Ralanr]

All I know is that these champion threads make me want to make a Half-orc champion fighter 3/Barbarian rest for crit fishing.

Also because it's been too long since I've had a valid excuse to use a D12.

[alchahest]

All I know is that these champion threads make me want to make a Half-orc champion fighter 3/Barbarian rest for crit fishing.

Also because it's been too long since I've had a valid excuse to use a D12.

So do it! have fun with it! smash in the name of Grumsh!

[Sigreid]

Because a certain percentage of the population can't accept that something they may not enjoy is exactly what someone else really wants.

[alchahest]

Because a certain percentage of the population can't accept that something they may not enjoy is exactly what someone else really wants.

Or, it's because people like discussing mechanics and math and try to do so in peace.

[CantigThimble]

Because a certain percentage of the population can't accept that something they may not enjoy is exactly what someone else really wants.

To be fair, this goes both ways here. Them not liking the champion being slightly unbalanced and us not liking mathematical analysis of RPGs for the sake of perfect balance.

Anyway, now we each have our own threads so we can complain about eachother in parallel without the need to intersect. :smalltongue:

[alchahest]

To be fair, this goes both ways here. Them not liking the champion being slightly unbalanced and us not liking mathematical analysis of RPGs for the sake of perfect balance.

Anyway, now we each have our own threads so we can complain about eachother in parallel without the need to intersect. :smalltongue:

well, this thread is about champion threads, so I don't mind being in here discussing the champion threads. I'm not saying not to discuss champion threads, as Klorox wanted to do enough that he created a thread. If discussing threads makes him happy I'm happy to join in, especially since I can offer some insight, as I'm taking part in some of those threads.

[Ralanr]

So do it! have fun with it! smash in the name of Grumsh!

Definitely my next character. And I'm going to play him all hammy and excitable. Mainly because all my barbarians seem to get angsty at some point.

It doesn't help that my DM's keep killing off my backstory characters...

[alchahest]

Definitely my next character. And I'm going to play him all hammy and excitable. Mainly because all my barbarians seem to get angsty at some point.

It doesn't help that my DM's keep killing off my backstory characters...

Best of Luck!

if you're able to use UA feats, grab the axe feat (Fell Handed I think?) for even more fun.

[CantigThimble]

Well, I suppose the question that isn't really being addressed in any of the champion threads is: To what extent does balance between classes/subclasses matter in D&D?

The champion threads all pretty much start with the premise that it does matter and even small errors in balance should be corrected. Naturally, people who disagree get annoyed and want to argue but they can't really go and discuss that in the champion threads because it's off topic. And thus, this thread was born.

[alchahest]

Well, I suppose the question that isn't really being addressed in any of the champion threads is: To what extent does balance between classes/subclasses matter in D&D?

The champion threads all pretty much start with the premise that it does matter and even small errors in balance should be corrected. Naturally, people who disagree get annoyed and want to argue but they can't really go and discuss that in the champion threads because it's off topic. And thus, this thread was born.

Whether it matters or not is up to each individual. If someone doesn't think it matters, why on earth would they go into a discussion thread that's based on the premise that it does matter? What can one gain by telling people that the thing they're discussing doesn't matter? If it does matter to a person, then there are threads to discuss the positives and negatives. they might not agree on opposing theses of the discussion but they do agree that the conversation has merit and is important to them. I'll never understand why someone goes into a discussion they feel isn't worth having, just to tell people that their discussion isn't worth having.

[Lombra]

Since I myself started a thread I feel exposed, and I'll openly tell everyone that I do it just for the sake of numbers, because of the fun that me and others find in analyzing these kind of things. Wether it has a realistically useful point or not is irrelevant, in the big picture there's no point in impersonating fantasy characters in a basement either.

[Pex]

Some people are upset there exists a class that doesn't have Things to use up to create effects of awesomeness, so they feel the need to prove to others why they're wrong to like the class.

[Nifft]

The next development is going to be people making more threads to complain about all the threads which complain about Champions.

That sure will be fun.

[CantigThimble]

Whether it matters or not is up to each individual. If someone doesn't think it matters, why on earth would they go into a discussion thread that's based on the premise that it does matter? What can one gain by telling people that the thing they're discussing doesn't matter? If it does matter to a person, then there are threads to discuss the positives and negatives. they might not agree on opposing theses of the discussion but they do agree that the conversation has merit and is important to them. I'll never understand why someone goes into a discussion they feel isn't worth having, just to tell people that their discussion isn't worth having.

There are tons of things that are 'up to each individual' that still get discussed and argued and that's not bad, but it can get tangled.

People are weird and impulsive and can't always compartmentalize perfectly. For example when people see "statistical proof against the champion" or something like that and they have no problem with the champion then it's perfectly normal for them to feel like someone is saying they're playing the game wrong, because that's what's implied. However the discussion they want to have is not on the same level as the discussion in the thread.

The IDEAL respoonse to that would be for them to figure that out and make a sperate thread about how much balance actually matters in D&D and have the discussion they actually want to have. However, the normal response is to engage directly, either by asking why the thread should exist within the thread itself (which never goes well) or by trying to defend their position within the thread's terms that the champion is fine and stretching the adventure day, character build or whatever else to get to that conclusion. Neither of those normal responses go well, people build up frustration etc etc. Now we're here, in the thread that should have been made ages ago to discuss why analyzing balance matters (in the context of what all the recent analysis threads are about) and half the thread is that pent up annoyance.

Edit:...It's days like these that I really, really hope that I know what I'm talking about because otherwise I must sound unimaginably arrogant right now.

[alchahest]

Some people are upset there exists a class that doesn't have Things to use up to create effects of awesomeness, so they feel the need to prove to others why they're wrong to like the class.

it's more that some people are discussing the merits and flaws of a class, in a thread that you have the option to enter, or not, at your leisure. Much like this thread is questioning why people make such threads, and all of us are choosing to enter the thread and discuss it.

[alchahest]

There are tons of things that are 'up to each individual' that still get discussed and argued and that's not bad, but it can get tangled.

People are weird and impulsive and can't always compartmentalize perfectly. For example when people see "statistical proof against the champion" or something like that and they have no problem with the champion then it's perfectly normal for them to feel like someone is saying they're playing the game wrong, because that's what's implied. However the discussion they want to have is not on the same level as the discussion in the thread.

The IDEAL respoonse to that would be for them to figure that out and make a sperate thread about how much balance actually matters in D&D and have the discussion they actually want to have. However, the normal response is to engage directly, either by asking why the thread should exist within the thread itself (which never goes well) or by trying to defend their position within the thread's terms that the champion is fine and stretching the adventure day, character build or whatever else to get to that conclusion. Neither of those normal responses go well, people build up frustration etc etc. Now we're here, in the thread that should have been made ages ago to discuss why analyzing balance matters (in the context of what all the recent analysis threads are about) and half the thread is that pent up annoyance.

Edit:...It's days like these that I really, really hope that I know what I'm talking about because otherwise I must sound unimaginably arrogant right now.

Definitely - I'm just saying that in the context of those threads, they are filled with people for whom the balance does matter. That doesn't make other people wrong, it doesn't imply they have fun incorrectly, it is a discussion for those people who feel a certain way about a certain topic. Whether, within that thread, one agrees with the OP or disagrees, the field in which the discussion takes place is one where balance matters. It would be similar to someone going into, say, a comic book thread, discussing which story was more important to deconstructing comic books; Dark Knight Returns, or Red Son - and someone coming into the thread saying "this side of the discussion is wrong, because this discussion is pointless".

[CantigThimble]

Definitely - I'm just saying that in the context of those threads, they are filled with people for whom the balance does matter. That doesn't make other people wrong, it doesn't imply they have fun incorrectly, it is a discussion for those people who feel a certain way about a certain topic. Whether, within that thread, one agrees with the OP or disagrees, the field in which the discussion takes place is one where balance matters. It would be similar to someone going into, say, a comic book thread, discussing which story was more important to deconstructing comic books; Dark Knight Returns, or Red Son - and someone coming into the thread saying "this side of the discussion is wrong, because this discussion is pointless".

Yeah, I'm not saying that's a good thing to do, I'm just looking for an explanation as to why it happens when it is so unproductive.

Anyway, if anyone would like to have the discussion about "Should the champion being slightly unbalanced matter?" then, as they say: Come at me bro. :smallwink:

[Vaz]

Relevant XKCD.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Knaight]

I thought it was common knowledge that this was a class for a player player who doesn't want to do any bookkeeping.

The optimization of this subclass really doesn't matter.

Amirite?

No. It's absolutely a class for people who don't want to do any book keeping, but that doesn't mean that balance (which is the term that fits here more than optimization) doesn't matter. Take a hypothetical class, Champion'. Champion' is the same as Champion, but to make it even simpler to play it loses the Extra Attack and Action Surge features. Champion' is clearly a problem - not wanting to do bookkeeping doesn't mean that a player should have to take a class that's bad at what they do. Whether or not Champion is a problem is debatable (and oft debated), but the broader question of whether the balance of the class matters is clearly answered in the affirmative.

[Nifft]

No. It's absolutely a class for people who don't want to do any book keeping, but that doesn't mean that balance (which is the term that fits here more than optimization) doesn't matter. Take a hypothetical class, Champion'. Champion' is the same as Champion, but to make it even simpler to play it loses the Extra Attack and Action Surge features. Champion' is clearly a problem - not wanting to do bookkeeping doesn't mean that a player should have to take a class that's bad at what they do. Whether or not Champion is a problem is debatable (and oft debated), but the broader question of whether the balance of the class matters is clearly answered in the affirmative.

This.

I love the idea of a simple class -- it's a great tool for introducing new players to the game -- but I don't want simple to mean worse.

[Specter]

you forgot two:

6) People who are interested in exploring mathematical differences between intent and execution, or other elements of game design
and 7) people who aren't interested in a conversation making sweeping generalisations in the most negative light possible without breaking TOS about people who do want to discuss a thing.

6) is fine, though rare. 7) is the complete opposite of the people engaged in those threads (even me, sometimes).


Relevant XKCD.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

It's been 15 minutes and I'm still laughing.

[alchahest]

6) is fine, though rare. 7) is the complete opposite of the people engaged in those threads (even me, sometimes).
.

and yet, here we are.


1) people love to argue for the sake or arguing.
2) people love to find any flaw in WotC's stuff, as if that made them wiser than the company.
3) people feel their way of playing (making decisions every round) is the right/fun one.
4) people think that 1 DPR less makes a subclass garbage.
5) people care very little about taking more hits, and too much about damage.

Some of them fall on all of those, others on some.

you're literally ascribing intent to everyone that talks in those threads. If they're on the opposite side of the conversation from you, anyways. It's rude to dismiss their concerns as frivolous childish things like these, and belittle them in that way. It's not intellectually honest and it's not arguing in good faith.

If you care so little about their opinions that you make these generalisations to minimize their arguments, why take part in the thread?

[Specter]

and yet, here we are.



you're literally ascribing intent to everyone that talks in those threads. If they're on the opposite side of the conversation from you, anyways. It's rude to dismiss their concerns as frivolous childish things like these, and belittle them in that way. It's not intellectually honest and it's not arguing in good faith.

If you care so little about their opinions that you make these generalisations to minimize their arguments, why take part in the thread?

...because I'm stupid and petty myself sometimes?

Look, anyone who would take offense by these generalizations, made by someone they don't know, is at the very least not confident in what they're saying. If they can't even admit to taking something too seriously, there may be something more sinister at work.

[alchahest]

It could be flipped the other way around - anyone who'd enter a conversation with people they don't know, then proceed to be rude to them, infantilise their statements and put words and intent into their mouths, then, double down with insinuations about their emotional health instead of saying "my bad" when it's pointed out, maybe there's something more sinister at work?

Of course, anyone willing to be dismissive of people because they disagree with them might just be taking it too seriously, right?

[Specter]

It could be flipped the other way around - anyone who'd enter a conversation with people they don't know, then proceed to be rude to them, infantilise their statements and put words and intent into their mouths, then, double down with insinuations about their emotional health instead of saying "my bad" when it's pointed out, maybe there's something more sinister at work?

Of course, anyone willing to be dismissive of people because they disagree with them might just be taking it too seriously, right?

Sure, it could happen. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't talking about you, really. But if you're talking about me (and maybe you're not), I don't remember infantilizing anyone in those threads.

For me to be dismissive would mean those people are either right or that they could ever change their opinion based on anything said, and neither are true.

[Sigreid]

Or, it's because people like discussing mechanics and math and try to do so in peace.

My observation is that the threads boil down to "It's solid enough, not the best but serviceable, and BOOORING."

[Easy_Lee]

Back in 3.5, people spent a lot of time talking about tiers. With the massive disparity back then, it was a necessary conversation.

That isn't the case in 5e. Everyone is pretty close to the same power level in combat, and no one seems to care much about anything outside combat. But people still want to argue power levels on forums.

Additionally, some players like to have lots of powers. What I mean by powers is things like spells and specific abilities. If you take away their powers, they get upset. In the same way that not everyone likes sandbox games like Minecraft, not everyone likes to RP their own actions and let the DM decide how to roll it.

The champion does less damage than the battlemaster and has no extra powers. It's a two-hit combo right to the sensibilities of both above groups.

To lay my cards on the table, I think pursuing equality is a trap option for game developers. Pursuing perfect equality between players, so everyone could experience all of the content and everyone could get the best items, destroyed World of Warcraft. It similarly damaged 4e, bogging it down with so much equality that +1 to hit became the best stat one could find. Players don't want to be equal.

And there's nothing wrong with the Champion concept.

[scalyfreak]

Balance is not a fixed and unmoving thing that never changes. In fact, anyone who has ever practiced yoga, or lifting with barbells or other types of free weights, knows that the only way to maintain consistent balance is a string of never-ending minor adjustments of various kinds.

It stands to reason that the classes in an RPG system that has been created for the purpose of creatively use them in whatever way you want within the rules framework of that class, would be similar. It's intended to be balanced, but if all you do is read the rules to look for that balance you won't find it. Parts of it, certainly, but not all of it.That's like attempting to determine whether the dumbbell squat or the squat with the bar in the power cage is a better exercise for me, by studying only the theory of the lifts and nothing else. And that is not good enough. In order to discover which is the best one for me, I have to actually do the exercises.

Same thing with balance between classes in D&D. The theory only goes so far before you have to actually test things around a table. Can a fighter be as useful to the group's overall progress over the course of a long campaign, as the sorcerer and the bard are? Are the players of all three feeling like they are an important part of the team, and that they all contribute regularly?

The answers to those questions depend to a very large part on the DM and the players around the table, which is why they are so difficult to find a conclusive answer to. That is also why statistical analysis can't fully answer the question on whether there is balance or not. A player who auto-spams her champion's action surge on the first round and always uses it to get an extra attack, is probably not using that ability as effectively as the player who takes a more patient tactical approach and makes every effort to always use that action for whatever will give the group the most advantage. The action surge itself is just one more tool... when you use it and how is what really matters, and that is up to the player. The DM is there to set things up and make adjustments as needed, and hopefully when that has been done they have a campaign where all characters around the table are equally important.

It's not a stretch to imagine that's the kind of balance that the system is trying to achieve, rather than equal DPR between various sub-classes. And that kind of balance matters quite a bit - being the dead weight that holds back the rest of your group is not fun for anyone.

[mgshamster]

Back in 3.5, people spent a lot of time talking about tiers. With the massive disparity back then, it was a necessary conversation.

That isn't the case in 5e. Everyone is pretty close to the same power level in combat, and no one seems to care much about anything outside combat. But people still want to argue power levels on forums.


5e is on a scale of 1 to 10, and we vigorously argue over is, while forgetting that 3.X was on a scale of -50 to 50 (and maybe more).

[bid]

Since I myself started a thread I feel exposed, and I'll openly tell everyone that I do it just for the sake of numbers, because of the fun that me and others find in analyzing these kind of things. Wether it has a realistically useful point or not is irrelevant, in the big picture there's no point in impersonating fantasy characters in a basement either.
That's the best reason. You need feedback to refine your opinion, and sometimes a comment allows you to see in an old problem in a new light.

You can't become right if you don't accept to be wrong.

[Easy_Lee]

5e is on a scale of 1 to 10, and we vigorously argue over is, while forgetting that 3.X was on a scale of -50 to 50 (and maybe more).

Exactly. And truthfully, 5e is much less balanced out of combat than within. There's a massive disparity between what bards and fighters can do when not killing things. But, as with remarkable athlete, people seem not to care.

[BillyBobShorton]

Hey, at least they're not Purple Dragon Knight threads...

[Nifft]

Hey, at least they're not Purple Dragon Knight threads...

Purple dragons are stupid.

All the true dragons are in the RGB palette colorspace.

I'm willing to accept a new edition with CMYK dragons (and the Halftone Dragon template).

But there is no "purple" in ROYGBIV. It's a made-up color! Just like Pink, or Beige! There are no Beige Dragons either... they'd just be accountants anyway.

Purple isn't real! (Unlike dragons.)

Wake up, Sepiaple.

[Pex]

No. It's absolutely a class for people who don't want to do any book keeping, but that doesn't mean that balance (which is the term that fits here more than optimization) doesn't matter. Take a hypothetical class, Champion'. Champion' is the same as Champion, but to make it even simpler to play it loses the Extra Attack and Action Surge features. Champion' is clearly a problem - not wanting to do bookkeeping doesn't mean that a player should have to take a class that's bad at what they do. Whether or not Champion is a problem is debatable (and oft debated), but the broader question of whether the balance of the class matters is clearly answered in the affirmative.

If criticism was about how the class fails to function then they would have a point of discussion. Instead, it's all about statistical analyses of a difference of 1 or 2 average damage per round, which is meaningless, or that it's boring because it lacks Things to use up for bouts of awesomeness, which is merely personal taste opinion. The class does not fail to function.

For examples of classes that have points of discussion for alleged significant failure to function there is argument for Beast Master Ranger due to action economy problems controlling his Animal Companion and Three Elements Monk due to high ki cost to use his abilities. There is also concern for how Wild Mage Sorcerers get back their surges. These are discussions that can reference points right out of the book. No need to create a computer program to prove anything.

[imanidiot]

My observation is that the threads boil down to "It's solid enough, not the best but serviceable, and BOOORING."

Champion is by far my favorite Fighter archetype. I've been asked to reroll a different character because the other (inexperienced) players felt that my Champion was too powerful. Granted that was because of Variant human and Heavy Armor Master at level 1 but they thought it was because of Champion itself.

[scalyfreak]

If criticism was about how the class fails to function then they would have a point of discussion. Instead, it's all about statistical analyses of a difference of 1 or 2 average damage per round, which is meaningless, or that it's boring because it lacks Things to use up for bouts of awesomeness, which is merely personal taste opinion.

It is also a severely flawed definition of "awesomeness".

Yes, I am perfectly serious.

Severely flawed.

[qube]

@ Nifft LOL. you made my day; thanks mate.


No. It's absolutely a class for people who don't want to do any book keeping, but that doesn't mean that balance (which is the term that fits here more than optimization) doesn't matter.

There's a downside on that argument: a BM can be good, or it can be bad - dependant on the talent of the player (choice of manouvres, chocie when to use them). Optimisers usually presume that they are played quite well.

A class without these options - shouldn't be as powerful as the most optmized BM; it should only be as powerful as a normal BM (whatever that may be); else the chamption isn't as strong as the BM, but the BM is weaker (humans aren't machines and will make sub-optimal choices. Any sub-optimal choice the BM makes puts him below the optimal BM, and thus below that hypothetical champion.)

[djreynolds]

Players, myself especially, see the champion's improved critical and think Weapon Master (who's crit threat range could be 13-20)

Its unfortunate. You roll up a PC and think I want to be the best sword swinger in town and you realize that unless you make to at least level 15 with a specific build designed to have an easy, reliable source of advantage... you may not be the best sword swinger in town.

So new players get disheartened.

GWM and SS work great with any fighter or really any martial class, and we realize that its the feats and not the archetype or class doing the heavy lifting

At my table it is really the only archetype that I'm open to houserules and homebrews

But if you want a real challenge, then try playing and surviving as a champion to 15-18th level

[Zalabim]

Definitely - I'm just saying that in the context of those threads, they are filled with people for whom the balance does matter. That doesn't make other people wrong, it doesn't imply they have fun incorrectly, it is a discussion for those people who feel a certain way about a certain topic. Whether, within that thread, one agrees with the OP or disagrees, the field in which the discussion takes place is one where balance matters. It would be similar to someone going into, say, a comic book thread, discussing which story was more important to deconstructing comic books; Dark Knight Returns, or Red Son - and someone coming into the thread saying "this side of the discussion is wrong, because this discussion is pointless".
Personally, I get involved in those threads not because I think the balance matters (or at least not balance within the realm of the differences being discussed), but because those discussing the balance need help with the math, or the mechanics, or the theory, or the testing, or the conclusion. It's very much XKCD-comic related. I do have some curiosity about what it'd take to balance such things, but it's a distantly-secondary concern.

[Unoriginal]

Its unfortunate. You roll up a PC and think I want to be the best sword swinger in town and you realize that unless you make to at least level 15 with a specific build designed to have an easy, reliable source of advantage... you may not be the best sword swinger in town.


Define "best sword swinger in town".



GWM and SS work great with any fighter or really any martial class, and we realize that its the feats and not the archetype or class doing the heavy lifting

How many classes can reach 20 in several stats + two feats?

[ghost_warlock]

Purple dragons are stupid.

All the true dragons are in the RGB palette colorspace.

I'm willing to accept a new edition with CMYK dragons (and the Halftone Dragon template).

But there is no "purple" in ROYGBIV. It's a made-up color! Just like Pink, or Beige! There are no Beige Dragons either... they'd just be accountants anyway.

Purple isn't real! (Unlike dragons.)

Wake up, Sepiaple.

Technically, purple dragons (http://www.lomion.de/cmm/dragpuen.php) date back at least to 2nd edition AD&D.

It's actually ROYGBIV that's made up. Color fascists are trying to impose their tyranny upon you, never submit to their demands! Viva la revolución!

[Unoriginal]

But the question is:

What the f*** is a yellow dragon?

[Vaz]

It's a Chromatic True Dragon which crawls on its belly and lacks wings, but is the fastest flyer among the True Dragons by some way; over 100ft/turn faster than a Steel Dragon at Great Wyrm age. It breathes a blast of Salt, dealing damage and crippling them for a short while or until they are drenched in many gallons of water.

[Hrugner]

This.

I love the idea of a simple class -- it's a great tool for introducing new players to the game -- but I don't want simple to mean worse.

The problem you run into there is that you create a really accessible class picked up by many new players, and they find that they can't be as effective in other classes since they haven't learned how the game works beyond the basic rules. If the generic class or archetype is slightly less potent than their competition, then that archetype looks good to beginners while still encouraging them to move to the more complicated classes for the greater benefits available there.

Ideally all class archetypes would have equal complexity and each class would also have a blank archetype like champion that just boosts their actions by default that could be used at tables just learning to read. But in the end, 5th ed balance is a rounding error compared to most games, so champ is good enough.

[Sigreid]

But the question is:

What the f*** is a yellow dragon?

That would be a white dragon after he's spotted the champion fighter Archery Style and GWF style fighter with a quiver full of dragon slayer arrows and a 2h sword of dragon slaying.

[Crgaston]

Champion is by far my favorite Fighter archetype. I've been asked to reroll a different character because the other (inexperienced) players felt that my Champion was too powerful. Granted that was because of Variant human and Heavy Armor Master at level 1 but they thought it was because of Champion itself.

Ditto.

I played a champion in my group's first 5e campaign and in the next 2 out of 3 someone else has played one. They're fun!

[djreynolds]

Define "best sword swinger in town".



How many classes can reach 20 in several stats + two feats?

That's very true and I defend the fighter class going from level 1 and onward, especially in the AL with standard array, you will have maxed out your attack stat by level 6.

I have actually played a few champions to the higher levels, I enjoy the class. But it is a challenging class to play, and I believe you need a specific package.

And without a reliable way of gaining advantage for increased critical hit potential, usually through multiclass dips like reckless attack for heavy weapon users, cunning action and expertise in stealth for archers, magic initiate and find familiar... really the only way for a pure champion is to use S&B shield master and even this used to take 1 level of rogue, but now we have brawny and squat nimbleness.

GWM and SS are great feats and especially great with extra attacks, but the power is the feats. Same with PAM and shield master.

The first champion I played, we did so without feats or multiclassing. It was tough going, enjoyable but not nearly as fun as playing a paladin without feats.

A battlemaster and eldritch knight are playable without feats, while the champion without feats are a challenge.

[Zalabim]

And without a reliable way of gaining advantage for increased critical hit potential, usually through multiclass dips like reckless attack for heavy weapon users, cunning action and expertise in stealth for archers, magic initiate and find familiar... really the only way for a pure champion is to use S&B shield master and even this used to take 1 level of rogue, but now we have brawny and squat nimbleness.
Here's some fun ratios.
Advantage bonus crit chance (.19-.0975)/ Normal bonus crit chance (.1-.05) = 1.85.
Advantage level 15 bonus crit chance(.2775-.0975)/Normal level 15 bonus crit chance (.15-.05) = 1.8.
GWF 2d6 / 1d8 = 1.851851~.

That means switching from a 1d8 damage one-handed weapon (with or without dueling style) to a 2d6 damage two-handed weapon with GWF FS is better than getting advantage on every attack as far as champion's bonus damage from crits is concerned. Getting advantage once you have a two-hander is better still.

[lunaticfringe]

It's got No Spells or Resources or Novas! It's Trash, TRASH I say! Anyone who plays a class without spells is doing it wrong! Spells iz dah Best! You can't have fun without spells, your party will hate you and make fun of your stupid face.

(this should not be taken seriously)

[Ralanr]

Some people are upset there exists a class that doesn't have Things to use up to create effects of awesomeness, so they feel the need to prove to others why they're wrong to like the class.

Welp, someone won half the thread.

[Ninja-Radish]

Hey, at least they're not Purple Dragon Knight threads...

That's because everyone knows PDK sucks as a subclass and nobody is trying to convince everyone otherwise. Whereas with Champion, there are people who claim it's a great subclass. I'm not one of those people, Champion stinks in my view. Same with the Eldritch Knight. Battlemaster is the only decent subclass Fighter has.

[Easy_Lee]

That's because everyone knows PDK sucks as a subclass and nobody is trying to convince everyone otherwise. Whereas with Champion, there are people who claim it's a great subclass. I'm not one of those people, Champion stinks in my view. Same with the Eldritch Knight. Battlemaster is the only decent subclass Fighter has.

Battlemasters do the most damage and have the most combat options, but Champions and Eldritch Knights are both better at soaking damage and performing outside of combat. The problem with forum analysis, and AL for that matter, is a heavy emphasis on DPR over everything else. A forum bard would swap Jack of all Trades for a +1 damage boost.

Like I said, Champion rubs people the wrong way. He's the least special archetype of the least special class, and doesn't even have the courtesy to do the most damage. People who like to feel important, either by getting the most kills or casting big awesome spells, won't enjoy the class. Champion is for people who like an iconic fighter with none of the extra stuff. But people still remember 3.5, and remember how terrible the fighter was specifically due to his lack of special stuff back then. Things have changed.

[CantigThimble]

I am of the opinion that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if the champion has some marginal deficiencies, it certainly isn't broken. There are some people who think that the fighter as a while is broken, and that's a whole other issue, but if we're accepting the battlemaster as a viable option then the champion really isn't that far behind him. I don't bother with the massive champion math threads but I don't think anyone has demonstrated more than a 5-10% difference in DPR, which is pretty negligible in game. (If you even notice it at all)

People like to make 'Think of the noobs!' arguments in the same way people make 'Think of the children!' arguments. You're picking a group that probably doesn't know better, coming up with some way in which the thing you don't like could negatively affect them, and then using that to justify changing it. If a player is interested in doing flashy and impressive stuff then they probably aren't going to be playing a fighter at all, let along the most boring kind. If a player isn't interested in doing flashy and impressive stuff then they're not likely to care about doing slightly less damage. If a player is just playing the champion because they're really new to RPGs and aren't confident jumping in the deep end then chances are there will be no issue with them switching to a more interesting class once they've got a handle on things and they'll understand perfectly well that their default first, simplest character won't be their favorite.

[Ninja-Radish]

Battlemasters do the most damage and have the most combat options, but Champions and Eldritch Knights are both better at soaking damage and performing outside of combat. The problem with forum analysis, and AL for that matter, is a heavy emphasis on DPR over everything else. A forum bard would swap Jack of all Trades for a +1 damage boost.

Like I said, Champion rubs people the wrong way. He's the least special archetype of the least special class, and doesn't even have the courtesy to do the most damage. People who like to feel important, either by getting the most kills or casting big awesome spells, won't enjoy the class. Champion is for people who like an iconic fighter with none of the extra stuff. But people still remember 3.5, and remember how terrible the fighter was specifically due to his lack of special stuff back then. Things have changed.

You bring up some very good points. I should've made it more clear in my post that I was only speaking from my own perspective and not trying to prove anything mathematically.

The issue is that the Champion doesn't do anything particularly well. Take the Remarkable Athlete ability, which you have to wait until 7th level to get. Any other martial character with the Brawny feat is already far better at feats of strength and athletics than the Champion with Remarkable Athlete. That doesn't make the Champ feel very special.

Personally I think the fix for Champion isn't that hard. First, they need to crit on 18-20, not 19-20. Crits in 5E really aren't that great so there's no need to hold back. Second, Remarkable Athlete should give full proficiency bonus when you don't have proficiency and double proficiency bonus when you do. That would make the Champion a great subclass. Currently though, it seems pretty gimpy.

[Gastronomie]

Since it's already been argued like hell about how it's an un-optimized option, let me add something to the argument from a different perspective.

People say Champion is for the D&D beginner.

I honestly think Champion is NOT the class a D&D beginner should play.

Combat in D&D is more or less a matter of making decisions - "when to use what". It's about resource-keeping and getting the most out of particular abilities. The only other class besides Champion Fighter that doesn't really have resources (non-Arcane Trickster Rogue) makes up for it by constantly having multiple Bonus Action options that constantly open up new strategies.

I believe that when you start a new system, you should start it by learning its core mechanics, its main point. In the case of D&D it's mainly about "when to use your limited resources", and thus, the Champion, which has only like, two resources I think (Action Surge and Second Wind), is not really my choice I would recommend for a beginner.

If I recall correctly, my first character was a Warlock, and the second a Paladin. I enjoyed the resource-keeping, and although I made some mistakes (burning through spell slots too quickly and later suffering from lack of firepower), it was all a good experience, a chance to learn how to play.
And it was fun. Oh boy, it was fun. "Next time, I will do better." "Thinking back, I should have done this instead of that." The process was enjoyable, and when I got my second chance in the next session and got to shine in the party, it was just awesome.

I feel that that's how a beginner should jump into D&D - or anything new, really. Trying, failing, and learning. Not immediately going for the easiest option that doesn't really require a human brain to function.
If I had started the game with Champion, I don't know if I could have enjoyed the experience as much as I actually had. This is because there's no "doing better next". There's really no "thinking back and realizing there was a better option", because well, all you can do all day is roll the dice and pray you'll crit. It's not about learning, it's definitely not about improving. In other words, it's boring. And it doesn't give you the feeling that you, as a beginner, have grown as a player, or got to learn something new.

Of course I can understand that different people have different opinions, and that some beginners might want to try Champion first just to grasp the game mechanics, but at least my opinion is what I've mentioned above.

[bid]

Personally I think the fix for Champion isn't that hard. First, they need to crit on 18-20, not 19-20. Crits in 5E really aren't that great so there's no need to hold back. Second, Remarkable Athlete should give full proficiency bonus when you don't have proficiency and double proficiency bonus when you do. That would make the Champion a great subclass. Currently though, it seems pretty gimpy.
I prefer adding an extra action surge at level 7 rather than boosting the crit range. A champion want to use them for derring do.

[djreynolds]

Since it's already been argued like hell about how it's an un-optimized option, let me add something to the argument from a different perspective.

People say Champion is for the D&D beginner.

I honestly think Champion is NOT the class a D&D beginner should play.

Combat in D&D is more or less a matter of making decisions - "when to use what". It's about resource-keeping and getting the most out of particular abilities. The only other class besides Champion Fighter that doesn't really have resources (non-Arcane Trickster Rogue) makes up for it by constantly having multiple Bonus Action options that constantly open up new strategies.

I believe that when you start a new system, you should start it by learning its core mechanics, its main point. In the case of D&D it's mainly about "when to use your limited resources", and thus, the Champion, which has only like, two resources I think (Action Surge and Second Wind), is not really my choice I would recommend for a beginner.

If I recall correctly, my first character was a Warlock, and the second a Paladin. I enjoyed the resource-keeping, and although I made some mistakes (burning through spell slots too quickly and later suffering from lack of firepower), it was all a good experience, a chance to learn how to play.
And it was fun. Oh boy, it was fun. "Next time, I will do better." "Thinking back, I should have done this instead of that." The process was enjoyable, and when I got my second chance in the next session and got to shine in the party, it was just awesome.

I feel that that's how a beginner should jump into D&D - or anything new, really. Trying, failing, and learning. Not immediately going for the easiest option that doesn't really require a human brain to function.
If I had started the game with Champion, I don't know if I could have enjoyed the experience as much as I actually had. This is because there's no "doing better next". There's really no "thinking back and realizing there was a better option", because well, all you can do all day is roll the dice and pray you'll crit. It's not about learning, it's definitely not about improving. In other words, it's boring. And it doesn't give you the feeling that you, as a beginner, have grown as a player, or got to learn something new.

Of course I can understand that different people have different opinions, and that some beginners might want to try Champion first just to grasp the game mechanics, but at least my opinion is what I've mentioned above.

This post is great. Champions are challenging to play well.

[Zalabim]

Since it's already been argued like hell about how it's an un-optimized option, let me add something to the argument from a different perspective.

People say Champion is for the D&D beginner.

I honestly think Champion is NOT the class a D&D beginner should play.

Combat in D&D is more or less a matter of making decisions - "when to use what". It's about resource-keeping and getting the most out of particular abilities. The only other class besides Champion Fighter that doesn't really have resources (non-Arcane Trickster Rogue) makes up for it by constantly having multiple Bonus Action options that constantly open up new strategies.

I believe that when you start a new system, you should start it by learning its core mechanics, its main point. In the case of D&D it's mainly about "when to use your limited resources", and thus, the Champion, which has only like, two resources I think (Action Surge and Second Wind), is not really my choice I would recommend for a beginner.

If I recall correctly, my first character was a Warlock, and the second a Paladin. I enjoyed the resource-keeping, and although I made some mistakes (burning through spell slots too quickly and later suffering from lack of firepower), it was all a good experience, a chance to learn how to play.
And it was fun. Oh boy, it was fun. "Next time, I will do better." "Thinking back, I should have done this instead of that." The process was enjoyable, and when I got my second chance in the next session and got to shine in the party, it was just awesome.

I feel that that's how a beginner should jump into D&D - or anything new, really. Trying, failing, and learning. Not immediately going for the easiest option that doesn't really require a human brain to function.
If I had started the game with Champion, I don't know if I could have enjoyed the experience as much as I actually had. This is because there's no "doing better next". There's really no "thinking back and realizing there was a better option", because well, all you can do all day is roll the dice and pray you'll crit. It's not about learning, it's definitely not about improving. In other words, it's boring. And it doesn't give you the feeling that you, as a beginner, have grown as a player, or got to learn something new.

Of course I can understand that different people have different opinions, and that some beginners might want to try Champion first just to grasp the game mechanics, but at least my opinion is what I've mentioned above.
I think if you think the Champion has no other options than rolling and praying for a crit then you still have a lot to learn. Within attacking there's multiple options, and beyond attacking there's a range of different actions and non-actions like how to spend your movement and where to stand or not stand since dropping prone is a thing too. Playing a Champion could help someone learn all the options that are available in the basic rules without getting stuck in a rut of only looking at the advanced options offered by specific classes.

Personally, I'm playing a Ranger but I'm still trying to look at all my alternatives, while playing next to a Barbarian who seems to have completely backwards ideas of good tactics. I may have contributed to that by kicking a little guy off a bridge, but I was just trying to give him the idea to kick the big guy off, because he'd be better at doing that. No, don't grapple the 10 HP guy, drag him to the edge, then push him off, then attack the 50 HP berserker. Dunk the berserker and attack the 10 HP guys. We're only level 4. [/offtopic] [/rant]

[Gastronomie]

This post is great. Champions are challenging to play well.Thanks :3
I think if you think the Champion has no other options than rolling and praying for a crit then you still have a lot to learn. Within attacking there's multiple options, and beyond attacking there's a range of different actions and non-actions like how to spend your movement and where to stand or not stand since dropping prone is a thing too. Playing a Champion could help someone learn all the options that are available in the basic rules without getting stuck in a rut of only looking at the advanced options offered by specific classes.

Personally, I'm playing a Ranger but I'm still trying to look at all my alternatives, while playing next to a Barbarian who seems to have completely backwards ideas of good tactics. I may have contributed to that by kicking a little guy off a bridge, but I was just trying to give him the idea to kick the big guy off, because he'd be better at doing that. No, don't grapple the 10 HP guy, drag him to the edge, then push him off, then attack the 50 HP berserker. Dunk the berserker and attack the 10 HP guys. We're only level 4. [/offtopic] [/rant]Good point. Well sure, as you say, there's the core stuff like "where to stand/move" or "who to attack", and I do agree that those are important aspects of the game as well.
But well, at least in my case, those were either (a) obvious for me from the start, or (b) I first made a mistake, but mostly fixed it in the first few sessions. It was pretty easy to learn both those core mechanics and the resource system at the same time. And, the thing I want to say is, I didn't need to play a Champion to understand them.

And I also think that, say, your team's Barbarian - I don't think that he would have become a master strategist if he had started the game by playing Champion instead of Barbarian. Rather, I think it's mostly a matter of whether he has ever realized he's been making mistakes or not.
I think you did a good job with showing him the right option, because that way, he can learn. He's probably never realized he was doing the wrong thing before, but if you show him, he can now understand. And well, here, he isn't understanding because he plays a Barbarian, or any class for that matter. The reason he can get better is because you showed him the answer, which is irrelevant to the class he plays.
In my opinion, playing Champion wouldn't really have anything to do with learning core mechanics. People who can understand will understand without playing Champion, and people who have difficulty with it on their own will not be able to understand it, just because they play Champion.

Apart from that, (at least how I see it) "spending resources at the right timing on the right enemy" is much more difficult to master than "where to stand/move" or "who to attack" (hell, "who to attack" is included in " ~ on the right enemy"). And again, a personal opinion, but, it's also much more exciting.
"Ending movement in the right grid" is pretty much a matter of "you're right" or "you're wrong", and the answer is fairly obvious. Compared to that, deciding whether "spending resource A at timing B on target C" is the right answer or not is extremely difficult, and requires quite a lot of accumulated experience. It's also partially a matter of playstyle and preference. That's where players shine.

For that reason, I said that resource management is the "main point" of the game mechanics, but indeed, as you say, it could have been an over-exaggeration that, as a side effect, ignored the other aspects of the game. Overall, I agree with what you say.

But even so, I still believe that the Champion isn't a very interesting class, even for beginners. This will be repeating the same thing as above, but what one can learn from the Champion, you can learn from the other classes as well, and if one can't learn the core mechanics from another class, that guy will probably find it difficult with starting Champion as well (in which case the help of experienced players like you will be the important part, not the class he plays).

[Specter]

About this whole learning subdiscussion, I have a newb player who is currently a Battlemaster. He got talked into it by another player who said he would enjoy 'making more decisions' and that sort of nonsense.

He doesn't like the maneuver system at all. He either forgets to use them (e.g. Riposte) and feels dumb, or becomes neurotic about saving dice for a future big fight (which may or may not happen).

And I get it. When you are presented with choice, it's up to you to make the most out it, and many people are overwhelmed by that. As Sartre said, the more freedom, the more despair.

[mgshamster]

About this whole learning subdiscussion, I have a newb player who is currently a Battlemaster. He got talked into it by another player who said he would enjoy 'making more decisions' and that sort of nonsense.

He doesn't like the maneuver system at all. He either forgets to use them (e.g. Riposte) and feels dumb, or becomes neurotic about saving dice for a future big fight (which may or may not happen).

And I get it. When you are presented with choice, it's up to you to make the most out it, and many people are overwhelmed by that. As Sartre said, the more freedom, the more despair.

It's a common phenomenon. Even has a name: decision paralysis.

Like telling a student without a passion: you can pick any study you like to focus on! "Yeah, but which one should I pick?" "Any one you like!" And then they never do anything with it, because there are too many choices.

[Gastronomie]

About this whole learning subdiscussion, I have a newb player who is currently a Battlemaster. He got talked into it by another player who said he would enjoy 'making more decisions' and that sort of nonsense.

He doesn't like the maneuver system at all. He either forgets to use them (e.g. Riposte) and feels dumb, or becomes neurotic about saving dice for a future big fight (which may or may not happen).

And I get it. When you are presented with choice, it's up to you to make the most out it, and many people are overwhelmed by that. As Sartre said, the more freedom, the more despair.Well, yeah. Perhaps. I do understand. Perhaps that guy would have been better playing a Champion.

I, personally, am the type of person who doesn't care about feeling dumb. Not that I don't feel anything about feeling dumb; it's that instead of getting depressed over it, I just think it's natural for a beginner to fail, and then I try to remember it next time so that I don't have to feel dumb again. And when I sucessfully evade feeling dumb by repeating the same mistake, I feel happy. And I care about feeling happy.
Hell, if I cared about feeling dumb, I wouldn't be still alive. I feel dumb all the time.

But yes, I do understand that certain people do care about feeling dumb. I know people like that, although curiously, my friends who play TRPGs with me don't fall into that category at all.
My opinion about the Champion posted above is based on my personality, and the personalities of my friends who play TRPGs with me, so forgive me about being ignorant about other types of people.

The bolded part is probably true. I don't know exactly what percentage of D&D beginners fall into that category, but even if it was just 10% or 20%, if they do exist, I suppose the Champion class does have a reason to exist as well.

I personally am against that sort of way of thinking (how are you ever supposed to get better at something unless you first jump in, understand how awful you suck, and try to get better from there?), but still, I don't have the right to change other peoples' way of life, so yeah, maybe, the Champion itself is fine.

[Easy_Lee]

A lot of new players I've seen, especially kids, like to try "dumb" stuff that someone who's been playing a few years might not. Stuff like swinging from chandeli-he-heres, or whipping rugs out from under foes, or trying to bend bars. My point isn't to say that the champion is automatically the best at any of these things. But Remarkable Athlete gives the Champion bonuses to all of them regardless of whether he started with optimal skills and more importantly, regardless of how the DM chooses to roll them (acrobatics, athletics, dexterity check, strength check, etc.).

Here on the forums, we like to make builds that are the best at a few things. But there's something to be said for being decent at a wide variety of things at a wide variety of tables.

[Sigreid]

About this whole learning subdiscussion, I have a newb player who is currently a Battlemaster. He got talked into it by another player who said he would enjoy 'making more decisions' and that sort of nonsense.

He doesn't like the maneuver system at all. He either forgets to use them (e.g. Riposte) and feels dumb, or becomes neurotic about saving dice for a future big fight (which may or may not happen).

And I get it. When you are presented with choice, it's up to you to make the most out it, and many people are overwhelmed by that. As Sartre said, the more freedom, the more despair.

I would personally let this player change their archetype to champion if they want to. There's really no point in making the new player keep an option that was recommended to them that turns out to not be their keg of ale.

[Gastronomie]

A lot of new players I've seen, especially kids, like to try "dumb" stuff that someone who's been playing a few years might not. Stuff like swinging from chandeli-he-heres, or whipping rugs out from under foes, or trying to bend bars. .I sometimes try to do that....

I would personally let this player change their archetype to champion if they want to. There's really no point in making the new player keep an option that was recommended to them that turns out to not be their keg of ale.I agree with this. Personally, I believe one should learn through mistakes, but players have the right to play whatever suits them best.

[Rhedyn]

Good champion builds are the most dependent on stats. You need 20 con and str if you want to make the most of your class features or 20 str and dex if you want to make the most of remarkable athlete (skill monkey build). All the fighter builds in my head use vhuman or human which could be a strike against the class for many people.

What I do like about champion is that this class gets you the farthest away from the crunch and I hate the crunch of 5e.